MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889687141 · doi:10.1080/14737175.2018.1523721

Deep brain stimulation for childhood dystonia: current evidence and emerging practice

2018· review· en· W2889687141 on OpenAlexaff
Lior M. Elkaim, Phillippe De Vloo, Suneil K. Kalia, Andrés M. Lozano, George M. Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDystoniaDeep brain stimulationMovement disordersMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyPhysical therapyPsychiatryPsychotherapistParkinson's diseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Dystonia, one of the most common childhood movement disorders, is often medically refractory and can lead to profound impacts on the child and their caretakers' quality of life. Limited efficacy of pharmacological treatments has fueled enthusiasm for innovative neurosurgical approaches, notably deep brain stimulation (DBS) as a treatment for refractory dystonia. Areas covered: DBS is increasingly applied to successfully treat childhood dystonia. While generally safe and effective, results vary widely depending on underlying dystonia etiology. The current work synthesizes and highlights advances in research pertaining to the use of DBS for childhood dystonia. The efficacy of DBS for children and youth with dystonia is discussed, with analysis divided among etiological subtypes. The role of DBS as a lifesaving treatment for status dystonicus is also reviewed. Expert commentary: When carefully selected, certain children and youth with dystonia experience significant symptomatic improvement after DBS. Beyond dystonic symptoms, DBS can improve quality of life and reduce caretaker burden.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.355 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of NeurotherapeuticsSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207